Sayers, W. v. Heritage Valley Medical Group, Inc., 247 A.3d 1155

Patricia Ann Sayers died April 19, 2015; appellants (her husband/estate) filed a praecipe for writ of summons April 18, 2017 but did not serve defendants then. The writ was reissued Aug 10, 2017 and again Apr 3, 2019. Service occurred in April 2019. Complaint was filed May 20, 2019.
Defendants filed preliminary objections arguing the statute of limitations barred the action because the original 2017 writ did not toll the limitations period through good‑faith service efforts.
Plaintiffs argued statute‑of‑limitations is an affirmative defense that must be pled in new matter, so it could not be raised by preliminary objections.
The trial court allowed limited discovery on service, concluded plaintiffs made no good‑faith effort to effect service after the 2017 praecipe, sustained preliminary objections, and dismissed the complaint as time‑barred.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed dismissal on statute‑of‑limitations grounds but found the trial court erred insofar as it sustained some defendants’ objections for lack of personal jurisdiction (those defendants had been served in 2019 or waived the defense). The court held the jurisdictional error was harmless because the SOL bar required dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants improperly raised statute‑of‑limitations in preliminary objections instead of new matter	Sayers: SOL is an affirmative defense that must be pled in new matter; preliminary objections were procedurally improper	Defendants: Even if raised in preliminary objections, record shows SOL clearly bars claim because writ did not toll the limitations period	Court: Applied Cooper exception (briefed/argued and outcome clear); reached merits and held the 2017 praecipe did not toll the SOL for lack of good‑faith service effort, so dismissal affirmed
Whether the trial court erred by sustaining prelim. objections for lack of personal jurisdiction when some defendants waived it	Sayers: Trial court should not dismiss on jurisdictional grounds where many defendants waived that defense	Defendants: Some defendants preserved jurisdictional challenges in amended objections	Held: Trial court erred to the extent it sustained PJ objections for defendants who had been served or waived PJ, but error was harmless because the complaint was dismissed as time‑barred

Cooper v. Downington Sch. Dist., 357 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 1976) (allows merits review of improperly raised SOL defense when briefed, argued, and outcome would be clear on new matter)
Brown v. Hahn, 213 A.2d 342 (Pa. 1965) (permits courts to decide defenses raised procedurally incorrectly when record fully presents the issue)
Duffee v. Judson, 380 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 1977) (distinguishes Cooper in statute‑of‑frauds context where record did not show defendant would prevail)
Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. 1987) (endorses limited Cooper exception where defense is established on face of the complaint or plaintiff fails to object)
Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (writ of summons tolls SOL only if plaintiff refrains from conduct that stalls notice; service efforts must be bona fide)
Farinacci v. Beaver County Indus. Dev. Auth., 511 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1986) (requires good‑faith efforts to effect service; counsel’s faulty memory is not an excuse)
McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (statutes of limitations aim to ensure defendants receive timely notice; courts must guard against abuse of tolling by unserved writs)
Encelewski v. Associated‑East Mortgage Co., 396 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 1978) (filing preliminary objections without asserting lack of personal jurisdiction constitutes waiver and confers jurisdiction)